Author
Topic: Bible Translations (Read 121233 times)

quote:My concern comes from who is translating. How do you feel about fallen churches translating the Bible? Don't you think their doctrinal beliefs effect their translations?

I hope we're not forgetting that our beloved KJV was translated by men belonging to those same fallen churches. In fact, they were only recently emerged from, and still heavily influenced by, the RC Church.

The men whotranslated the KJV do not share our belief on the state of the dead, or hell, or the Sabbath, etc.

There is often simply more than one legitimate option of translation. Most times, it does not affect doctrine at all. Take Laurie's example of Isaiah 14:12 for example. The fact is that the name Lucifer means "morning star". Morning star is a perfectly valid translation of the Hebrew word "heylel".

In places such as Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28, God is pointing out how far Lucifer has fallen. We seem to forget that for unknown ages, Lucifer was a bright and shining star, the most perfect expression of God's handiwork. But God has not forgotten. And Lucifer has not forgotten. And the onlooking universe has not forgotten. And it is a pointed testimony in the Great Controversy on the terrible effects of sin.

I think part of the reason why we find it so hard to understand why 1/3 of God's angels chose to follow Lucifer, is because we want to downplay the high estate that was Lucifer's before the fall. EGW writes:

quote:Thus it was that Lucifer, "the light bearer," the sharer of God's glory, the attendant of His throne, by transgression became Satan, "the adversary" of God and holy beings and the destroyer of those whom Heaven had committed to his guidance and guardianship. {PP 39.2}

When speaking of Lucifer prior to the fall, God is talking about the created being most like himself. It was God who named him Lucifer.

These are minor points, not worth arguing about. I was just trying to point out that when we do what EGW told us to do, learning to see the Bible as a whole and not tying doctrine to one specific text, then we can safely use most translations of the Bible. And particularly for new Bible students, there are advantages to modern English translations. That was the point I was trying to make. I certainly don't want to introduce any discord to this lengthy thread.

Brother Randy, you are very thoughtful in your posts. There is no discord. The discussion is an important one. I appreciate you pointing out the situation with the church at the time of the translating of the KJV. It is an often pointed out argument when I ask my question about the fallen churches today. I want to address this, but if you would, could you answer my concerns about those who translated, say the NIV? Do you really believe they are qualified to translate the Bible for our study?

Richard

Logged

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Do I think that certain translators were qualified to do a translation? That's very difficult, since I am not qualified to judge. I do not happen to like the NIV as a translation, probably for some of the same reasons that I have read from your posts. I guess I believe that anyone who is a Greek/Hebrew scholar and is fully converted to Christ and is being led by the Holy Spirit is qualified to translate scripture.

Do I know if that was the case with all of the members of any given translation committee? No. I guess the best we can do is go by the work that they produce. That's essentially what we are all talking about.

The bottom line is that there are paraphrases in all translations. If you look at the KJV in Romans 3:25, for instance, there is a Greek word that means "lid of the ark". That's what it means, there is no disagreement about it. But when Luther translated it he didn;t use "lid of the ark", he coined a brand new word instead, which in English comes out "mercy seat". The KJV translators liked Luther's paraphrase and used "mercy seat" elsewhere in the Bible, but when they got to Romans 3:25, they paraphrased even Luther's paraphrase to "propitiation" instead. Now, how do you get "propitiation" from "lid of the ark"? That's a paraphrase. Perhaps propitiation is what the lid of the ark represents. Perhaps "atonement" or "reconciliation" is a better paraphrase. Perhaps it is best to let it read "lid of the ark" and have the reader think about what the lid of the ark represented.

So, if paraphrase is inevitable in translation, then clearly the bent of the translators is going to come into play. Were the men on the translating committee in 1611 England more in tune with God then the men on the NIV translation committee? Who knows? I love the KJV. But even with the KJV, I try to consider the Bible as a whole. And when I hit a text that doesn't seem right with my understanding of the rest of the Bible, I look up the original language to the best of my ability. I think if you do that you are safe with most translations.

Brother Randy! I'm not trying to cause a division or pick an argument either...and I'm just expressing my beliefs as to why I believe other versions are unreliable for teaching doctrine. Besides working in Radiology (xray tech), I preach in 3 churches on a regular basis(Lay Preacher). Very often, I have "other" members approach me, and say, "My version says something different than yours." They're right! Other versions don't synchronize with what I'm saying.

And yes, the translators of KJV weren't wholly understanding what they were writing either. But I believe that God's Holy Spirit also had a "hand" in this work.

I have many good friends who are RC's, Baptists, Anglicans, JW's" who have their own "pet" versions...and when I compare Scriptures with them, albeit in the xray room, or on "the street", they seem surprised to believe that I still use the old "outdated KJV", when there are more modern ones that agree with their beliefs!

It is a blessing to look at this without passion getting in our way. Because so many are not comfortable with many of the new translations, it does present a problem that I think we need to guard against. It becomes apparent when we look at non-English translations as Brother Domingo pointed out. The King James is not the only Bible and it is not perfect. For me, it is the only Bible because of my time contraints and the blessings I have recieved by doing just what Brother Randy points out. I take the Bible as a whole and if there is a passage that I am having difficulty with, it does not change my faith. There is a thread of truth that runs through the whole Bible.

Yes, I can use other versions, but I find too many objectionable verses that lead away from the truth. The King James may be (is) hard to understand in some places, but it has been faithful to not lead me away from truth like my NIV did.

The question comes again, are the translators from the fallen churches qualified to translate the Word of God? I don't think so. There may well be some who are converted, but I can truly state a fact. They are not at the leading edge of truth and not in a position to influence those who are. For some reason, if they are converted, they do not accept important aspect of "present truth".

This is enough to cause me great concern not to mention the fact that most of those translating are more than likely unconverted. Why can I say this? Because if they were, they would have uncovered the truth of the state of the dead, the Sabbath, and the gospel. And once they did this, they would come out of Babylon. The fruit of their work is seen in the translation of the NIV.

How about those who translated the KJV? God holds His hand over His Word. I believe that He took those men who were influenced by the religion of their time and kept them as true to the truth as He wanted. The Holy Spirit is a powerful agency to translate the Bible correctly. We cannot discount this. While they held error in their own understanding we can assume that the Holy Spirit led in the selection of honest souls who were open to the "present truth" of their day. This makes them qualified even with their erroneous doctrines. I believe by the fruit of their work that they were led by the Holy Spirit.

For those who need non-English translations, I am at a loss except to say that God can reach through even the NIV and teach us. He has protected other Bibles in other languages to the degree that He wants. We may rejoice that English has the status in the world today that it does. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy can be rightly understood and spread around the world just as it was at the time of Jesus in Greek.

This has been a good thread for me personally. I am enjoying it very much. Many minds are much better than one. We are growing in our understanding together.

Richard

Logged

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

quote: Brethren. For the past week or so, while working on a paper, it suddenly occured to me that perhaps [since King James was Catholic] there is too strong a connection to the Catholic view of "righteousness by works"?

King James was not a Catholic, but a protestant. He was the son of the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, who was deposed when James was only 13 months old. His father had been murdered only months before. James was made king of Scotland, and a regent ruled until James was old enough to take control. He was raised by tutors, as Mary had fled to England where she was imprisoned by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, for 20 years. She was then excuted. On the dealth of Elizabeth, he also become king of England.

James' most influential tutor was a staunch Calvinist. James was raised a protestant, and says of himself that he was not a papist. He

quote: held the Roman Catholic religion in contempt. Roman clerics tried to kill him more than once. The King was born during the time of the Reformation and well knew popery's atrocities. In 1536, popery burned William Tyndale to death for distributing the Bible and it was MUCH displeased with King James' authorization of a Bible in English. Roman Catholic Nicolo Molin, an Ambassador said this of King James:

"...He is a Protestant...The king tries to extend his Protestant religion to the whole island. The King is a bitter enemy of our religion (Roman Catholic)...He frequently speaks of it in terms of contempt. He is all the harsher because of this last conspiracy (Gun Powder Plot) against his life...He understood that the Jesuits had a hand in it."

King James said this in Basilicon Doron:

"I am no papist as I said before...Now faith...is the free gift of God (as Paul sayeth). It must be nourished by prayer, which is no thing else but a friendly talking to God. Use oft to pray when ye are quiet, especially in your bed..."

If James had been a Catholic, why would he have ordered an English translation of the Bible? The Roman church did not want the common man to have access to the Scriptures. And why did Guy Fawkes and 3 other Catholics attempt to blow up Parliment when the king was present? The plot was discovered and the men executed. The British still celebrate Guy Fawkes Day with bonfires. No, King James (VI of Scotland and I of England) was very much a protestant!

[This message has been edited by Linda Sutton (edited 11-24-2002).]

Logged

O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Jeremiah 10:23-24

It has been a week or so since I last checked in on this topic and I am happy to see a dicussion on this topic done in such love and consideration. Ususally this topic generates a lot of heat and tempers flare a little. So it is good to be amoug a group of people that have a genunine love for each other.

Let me start by saying that I use the KJV. However, I don't use it because it is the only "reliable" version. I use mainly because it is what I grew up with and am very comfortable with it. I also find it easier to memorize. The archaic language makes it difficult to accidently slip in your own words when trying to memorize scripture.

I really don't understand the tendency of people to cling to the KJV and only the KJV. If that is the case then the version that Luther translated into german (if I remember my history correctly)is also "bad". Actually there are several translation errors in the KJV so maybe we should just learn greek and hebrew and read the original.

I think that people need to understand that not all bibles are based on the same originals and that they are based on different translation princples.

For instance the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus and uses the formal equivalence method for translation. That means that careful detail was used to translate every word no matter how insignificant the word seemed to be.

The NIV is based on a different original and a different translation princeple. The NIV is based on the "critical text" and uses the dynamic equivalence translation method. Meaning that it attempts to as closely as possible translate the orignal thought behind the text.

The translators of the NIV didn't delete or omitt bible passages because it suited their own interestes or theology or some hidden agenda. These passages were ommitted because they didn't appear in the critical text. Most NIV that I have seen are careful to point out in the margin which verses have been omitted because of this.

Now please don't get me wrong. I am not giving my support to the NIV. It definitely has its problems maybe more so than the other translations.

We also need to remember that the bible is thought inspired not word inspired. If the Holy Spirit in deed inspired every single word then we would have big problems with the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they couldn't seem to be consistant about all the details. For instance how many demoniacs were there, 1 or 2? It depends on which book you read. I have a hard time believing that the Holy Spirit doesn't remember but rather it is man who forgot. In the end in the big picture does it matter how many there were? Nope! It is the thought or princple behind the story that counts.

Logged

By communion with God in nature, the mind is uplifted, and the heart finds rest. {DA 291.1}

"For me it is difficult to understand why the various versions agree to omit the testimony of one of the Apostles!1 John 5:7(snippety)(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

There is something called the Majority text of the new testament, which is nearly indentical to the Textus Receptus, but not quite. The above is one example. We are told that when Erasmus was producing the Textus receptus he refused to add the above text because it was not present in ANY greek text he knew of. When pressed to add it, he declared that if just one greek manuscript could be found with that text in it, he would add it. In the course of time someone presented him with just such manuscript, and he kept his word, though he commented to his friends that he felt this manuscript was produced just for the occasion. According to the sources I have, there are only about 3 manuscripts in existence with that text in it. This establishes that it doesn't belong in the Bible, as far as I am concerned (it is neither in the majority text nor in the oldest text, and I know of no other manuscript position that is currenlty used to defend it). I mention this, not to start an argument, but as an illustration of how careful we need to be in defending our doctrinal positions. The Trinity can be proven just fine without a questionable text (it apparently comes from the Vulgata, the Latin text).

Brother Myers said: "Here is a question that enters my mind from time to time. The Bible is God's Word. Would the devil attempt to change it? How could he do it? Would he need to use men to do it? Where could he find "Christians" that he could use to change the Word of God?"

If the truth of our message could only be established by the Christianity I have seen while denominationally employed, there would be no hope, but thankfully it is established by the Word of God. All manner of deceit is customarily employed to "protect" the name of our church (well intended, of course). It goes without saying that the only way to protect the name of our church is by living what we profess to begin with!This statement is intended to illustrate that the issue of who produces a translation (a fallen or unconverted church for example) is not necesarily a reliable method for judging the translation. It needs to be judged by its own merits. For example, fortunately the translators of the NIV produced a book in which they clearly told us what they had in mind when they produced their translation. This book tells me that they were honest and had very good intentions, but they are deceived and deceiving others (the book describes how they 'clarified' the meaning of texts). Would to God that our Adventist committees were this candid!

I recall reading where the Lord told Mrs White when she could trust certain people, and when she could no longer trust them. What struck me is how little time transpired between the two states!

When I recall how the spanish, french, early english and german versions were produced by catholic monks newly come to the reform, and yet they are highly trusted the world over, I feel, even though I understand the point being made, that perhaps it needs to be refined a bit.

There is also the issue of 'Present Truth'. Can the conversion or honesty of people be established by their not discovering things which were not 'Present Truth' for their time?

I feel that the SOP quotation Laurie shared with use applies most eminently to the NIV, among other recent versions (mainly in the manner of translation, but who could say whether that was not what she was refering to):"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed." EWp220-221

I became interested in reading your postings on Bible translations, and I am amazed that some of you are so concerned to support KJV as THE translation, and to discuss about inspired or non-inspired translations.

There is simply no such thing as "inspired translation". Translations are good or not so good, and be sure that all of them are imperfect. We SDAs can be satisfied with this, because we don't believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible. Thus we allow not only the translators and scribes to err, butalso the inspired authors themselves. Don't we ?

I teach Biblical Languages, Hermeneutic and Exegesis in a SDA Theological Seminary overseas. For many years I compared translations, Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, I also have read studies authored by others, and I can tell you that there is no basis to cling to THAT translation. In my country (Romania), our people avoid the Orthodox (majority) Bible translation and stick to the Evangelical Cornilescu Bible. I am convinced that their main reason is that they are familiar with the language of Cornilescu Bible (which is indeed, more modern). Another reason is that the Orthodox Bible adds Apocripha in the OT (because its text is translated from the Septuagint, which Orthodox think it's THE inspired Old Testament), and because in the New Testament there are some verses where Orthodox translated "priests" instead of "elders". But if you search for other references (for example in Daniel etc., you discover the Orthodox Bible aa a better translation... Now I am an active member of the Romanian Interconfessional Bible Translation, and I am acquainted with leaders of the international forum (UBS), and with their translation policy. I can testify that it is now conspiragy against the Truth. But, anyway, doctrinal criteria (even SDA doctrines) are anot accepted understandably in translation.

All these people who serve in the Bible translation, at local level or at UBS aren't perfect. They smoke, they drink, maybe some of them have a wordly life. Some of them are staunch fundamentalists (Evangelical or Orthodox), and some are quite liberal (e.g. thinking that Daniel is written late in the second century BC). However, they are honest people, trying to do their best professional and being more than respectful with a SDA scholar: they care what I would say, when we meet for translation. I think it's better to have 7 sinners unite and translate a Bible, than just one righteous man. This is not so much an "inspired" work, but it is professional. I had a surgery at my left eye, and the surgeon, a renegated Jew, was cursing, using God's name during that operation. However, his surgery succeded well, because he was a good professionist. Each human work is imperfect, so is the Bible authoring, copying, editing, and translation. Its interpretation is also imperfect. God make us responsible for what we could do, not for what is beyond our control. God gave in the Church different gifts, and I don't think that will ever be a time when we have the perfect translation, or when all the Church will read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. If you trust the KJV translators' motivation or skill, though you cannot check it out, please trust also the contemporary gifts in the Church, even they aren't supernatural. Or, if not, please learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, textual criticism and so on...

Excuse my poor English. I love you, anyway.

------------------Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2)

[This message has been edited by Florin Lăiu (edited 03-05-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Florin Lăiu (edited 03-05-2003).]

Logged

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2)

Good to have you with us, Elder Lăiu. Your presence brings back memories of the first class to graduate from the seminary there in Boucharest in 1991. It was a blessing to be present. It was a holy occasion. I was impressed by the reverance shown. That all of our religious services would be of such a manner.

In regards to our present topic, can we say that it is important that any translator of the Scriptures be led by God? And, that if the Holy Spirit is not leading that there will be great difficulties in the translating? If one does not understand the subject being translated, is it not true that context will be difficult to ascertain? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Again, good to have you with us in this important discussion.

Logged

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Well, I would like that any Bible translator be led by God. This would be very helpful for their soul at least... Howeverm God's miracle of Providence is that He leads circumstances even in spite of lack of spirituality of such and such. And there is more: we all see some things very well done by professionals who are not spiritual people, and also we witness not a few spiritual people who aren't good professionals. I often heard Orthodox scholars say that philologists, language teachers, must not be involved in such a sacred work as Bible translation. However, I know Greek scholars, who aren't theologians but they are better prepared to make a correct and nice translation.

SPIRITUAL is sometimes a volatile term. The highest amount of spirituality cannot compensate for lack of skill. Even the Holy Spirit, wanting to do a better job through someone, He uses his reason and skills to expect the best possible solution, and not just holy feelings, that can't serve anyone but the one who bears them.

Translation must be fair in thought expression and gracious in form. Nothing more. The rest is not the translator's job. Further, God's Spirit will lead an exegete, a minister, a prophet or a simple person to develop a thorough explanation.

Thank you for the good recollections from our campus. God bless !

Logged

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2)

Brother Lăiu, glad to have you here at TRO. From what I read, I wouldn't worry too much about your english. You did just fine. Probably better than some of us who have english as a first language.

I also don't completely grasp why some people get so warm under the collar when "defending" the KJV. If it is the only "good version" out there then the rest of the non-english speaking/reading people out there are in trouble.

However, I do use the KJV as my preferred version. I prefer it because it is what I grew up with and am familiar with it. I've also found that most study helps such as "Strong's Concordance" and "The Englishman's Greek and Hebrew Condordances" and others are built around the KJV. So if I'm doing a word study it is much easier (for me) to follow.

Not that I do a whole lot of memorization (like I should!) but when I do I find the KJV is easier because it's wording is different than how I'd normally speak. I've found the closer a version reads to how I speak it is much much easier for me to accidently put in my own words.

Anyways, good to have you join us

Logged

By communion with God in nature, the mind is uplifted, and the heart finds rest. {DA 291.1}

I understand "perfectly" this clinging to KJV, because it is not a unique phenomenon of the English speaking people. Everywhere,especially among the evangelicals, there are preferred versions. My preferred version is BIBLIA SACRA, a combination of the Hebrew OT critical text of Stuttgart, with the Greek NT, also a critical edition. And though we have some different translations and versions in Romanian, I still PREFER to use the classical evangelical Cornilescu Bible, simply because I am familiar with its text, and especially because I can find verses easier (I have a better visual memory to find the right page, than to memorize numbers of chapters and verses). Surely I understand what means a preferred version, but I distinguish between a subjective preferrence and a theological preferrence. It is not always the same thing.I know that some people are afraid of new translations, and some concerned brethren published unwise and misinformed studies in an attempt to proof an evil (jesuit) conspiracy against the only inspired English translation... Would they tell us what is the "inspired" translation in each language ? It's OK to have a preferred version. The Pope himself probably has one. But I'm sure, the Devil hates them all, even the supposedly most affected by jesuits...

Whenever I was taken an interview for the Romanian television on this topic, I didn't allow me to enter their game, to show preferrence between the Orthodox and the Evangelical Bible. The mos important thing is that people faithfully read THEIR Bible, no matter what version.

I understand that it is easier to memorize exactly a fixed non-colloquial form. Two decades ago I was memorizing the book of Obadia and chapters of the OT in Hebrew, and it helped me to keep the text in a fixed form in my mind. When I memorized the Revelation in Romanian I didn't cling always to the fixed form of the Evangelical Version (and sometimes intentionally!). I think that nobody should have remorse if he / she misses the "correct" wording and puts the same idea in his / her words. This is common with translators who choose the best way of expressing the same idea in a literary form.

SDAs in each country didn't strive to have their own good translation. They simply used the same Bible as their opposers. This is a wise position to defend the truth. Now, if this is so important (and certainly it is !), why not have our good translation ? I'm sure that some SDAs will not be satisfied with this solution, because they have nightmares with jesuits infiltrated within our ranks in leading and ifluential positions, and so on...

May God give us wisdom and peace while we read each own preferred version of the Bible !

Logged

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 4:2)

Joan

Greetings from me, Joan, in Germany to you Br.Lăiu. I am delighted you found a TRO forum thread to your liking.

If we as Seventh-day Adventists are holding to certain doctrines or teachings only because of a particular wording in the KJV verse, and that the concept of the message is found only in the KJV, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

The Jehovah Witnesses have a translation they use. I wonder if we believe it to be one worthy of our study. I think there may be some confusion as to the discussion here so far. If there are English translations of the Bible that are not influenced by evangelical theology or by JW theology, I would like to know which ones they are. I have no problem with another translation, I would just like to know which ones have not been translated by those who have rejected truth. Is this too much to ask for? If my theology is based upon the Bible and the Bible is translated by those with whom I have a theological difference, it seems to me we have a problem?

What happens in other languages is important also, but I have little knowledge of that. What happens in the English language is of great importance because of it's broad acceptance in the world.

[This message has been edited by Richard Myers (edited 07-02-2005).]

Logged

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Joan

The JW's bible is a cheeky manipulation of inserting the name Jehovah in places it wasn't there in the first place.

The Roman Catholic's scholars did an English version of the New Testament from the Vulgate in 1582. They followed up in 1610 with the Old Testament translation. It's referred to as the Douay-Rheims Bible. Does anyone know of specific erroneous RCC church teachings coming out of this version because of errors in translation?

"....I would just like to know which ones have not been translated by those who have rejected truth. Is this too much to ask for? If my theology is based upon the Bible and the Bible is translated by those with whom I have a theological difference, it seems to me we have a problem?"

I know of no translation of that isn't mixed with a small amount of bias from the theology of the translator/s themselves. Even the theology of the translators of the KJV would not have agree with us (SDAs) on many of our doctrines.

This well known verse below shows that the translators of the KJV were biased in a certian direction. When we well know that there was no punctuation in the bible.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

As far as I am concerned there are times in the OT when the hebrew word "sheol" should have been translated "grave" instead of "hell" like they did.

I think we would be hard pressed to find a version out there where the translators have the same theology as us.

Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to stay and if that is case please correct me.

Logged

By communion with God in nature, the mind is uplifted, and the heart finds rest. {DA 291.1}

Very good question, Brother Jim. I realize waht you say and agree that there are some problems with the KJV. What my concern is not that someone misunderstood Scripture, but that they rejected light. There is present truth and there is truth. If David were to have translated a whole Bible, he would not have understood all and there would be some misunderstandings because the light had not yet come. But, what is we follow the translation of the Roman Catholics during the dark ages, or even today? How would you like to do this? I don't think so.

What I am saying is that I will trust the experience of the translators of the KJV before accepting a translation made by those who are leaders in the "Protestant" faith today. Why? I think you can help me out with why I am concerned. Let me just add one word so that my concern is perfectly clear. "Babylon".

In re-reading my post, I will allow for a translation that is not slanted, even if done by those not of our faith. If there is one, then I am not completely prejudiced against it. I am just using the intellect and reasoning that God gives. The reason why I gave up the NIV I had when first converted was because it was leading me away from the truth. The thoughts expressed here came after I gave up my NIV.

Logged

Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Brother Richard, I can see and follow your reasoning to a point. However, I'm wondering at what point in history do people of other faiths cross the line from misunderstanding truth to rejecting truth? I very well could be mistaken here but I thought Ellen White used the RV from time to time. Correct me if I am wrong about that.

Let me say this before I finish. I also agree with you about the NIV and any other version that uses the "dynamic equivalence" method to translate the bible. This is where the translators thought they were doing us a favor by translating the "thought" behind the words instead of translating it word by word (formal equivalence). To me the dynamic equivalence method gives too much latitude to the individuals doing the translating.

With the formal equivalence method it is a lot harder for the translators to change the meaning. Unless it is done by changing a word here and there to suit their own liking which is also done in KJV, which I'm sure you are aware of, with words like, grave, hell, wine, etc. They even supplied words in that some in cases shouldn't be there at all.

However, after saying all of that I will continue to use the KJV. For me the KJV is the closest to the original and still readable and understandable. 95% of the in depth bible study helps like concordances, dictionaries and commentaries were designed around the KJV.

In this age with computers and book stores so easily accessible we have no excuse for not digging into the Bible to discover new and wonderful truths.

Some people may find the following information interesting.

King James Version (1611,1769)

Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible by Robert Young, 1862,1887,1898

The Darby Bible, A literal translation of the Old Testament (1890) and the New Testament (1884) By John Nelson Darby (1800-82)

English Revised Version (1885)American Standard Version (1901)Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952)New American Standard Version (1960, 1971)The New American Bible (1970) New International Version (1973, 1978)New King James Version (1979, 1982)New Revised Standard Version (1990)

Logged

By communion with God in nature, the mind is uplifted, and the heart finds rest. {DA 291.1}